UNDER RESEARCH - THE SENTENCED

Updated Summary:

Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Case No.: 0020693-63.2015.4.02.5101

(Open to public to view.)

(Electronic summons issued/certified - Judgment

Ref.  to Event 38

(APPELLANT -  HENRIQUE EDUARDO FERREIRA WAJSFELD)

Deadline: 15 days Status: PENDING.)

The case in question is a civil lawsuit for administrative misconduct filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Government against Rogerio da Silva Pinto, Carlos Eduardo da Costa, Julio Schubert Frabetti, Henrique Eduardo Ferreira Wasjfeld, and others, also involving the Federal Government as an interested party. The purpose of the action is to investigate and hold accountable any acts of administrative impropriety, that is, conduct considered illegal or unethical by public officials in the exercise of their duties, which may have caused damage to the public treasury or violated principles of public administration. The amount attributed to the case is R$ 50,000.00, and the proceedings are not confidential, which means that the information is public.

During the proceedings in the lower court, the case went through several phases, including subpoenas, submission of documents, scheduling and cancellation of hearings — many of which were impacted by COVID-19 prevention measures, which led to the suspension of deadlines and postponement of procedural acts. After the production of evidence, especially the inclusion of recordings of testimony, a deadline was set for the parties to present their final arguments. The trial judge issued a ruling partially upholding the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office's claims, that is, he recognized part of the charges of administrative impropriety. The parties filed appeals against this decision, such as motions for clarification (to clarify points in the ruling) and appeals (for review of the decision by the court). The motions were not granted, and the case was referred to the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region (TRF2) for judgment on the appeals.

In the second instance, the case was sent for review by the 6th Specialized Panel of the TRF2. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office presented its opinion, the parties were summoned to present their counterarguments, and there were several additions and removals from the trial agenda, as well as postponements of sessions. Finally, the court unanimously upheld the first instance ruling, maintaining the decision that partially recognized the practice of administrative impropriety. After the publication of the judgment (collegiate decision), the parties were again summoned and filed motions for clarification, which were also reviewed. The case remains active, with motions related to the parties' knowledge, the presentation of counterarguments, and new additions to the agenda for possible appeals.

The most likely next steps for this case involve the analysis of any applicable appeals against the court's decision, such as motions for clarification or special and extraordinary appeals, if the parties believe that there are constitutional issues or issues of interpretation of federal law to be reviewed by higher courts, such as the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) or the Federal Supreme Court (STF). If there are no new appeals, the case may be forwarded for enforcement of the decision, which may include the application of sanctions to the defendants if the conviction for administrative impropriety is upheld. Monitoring of the upcoming trial schedules and the possible filing of new appeals will determine the final outcome of the case.

Sources

Recent

Movements

This month

07/07/2025

Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

-------------------------

Update:

SENTENCE Based on the foregoing, I DECLARE THE PUNISHABILITY OF ALBERTOEBASTIÃO TROTTE, HENRIQUE EDUARDO FERREIRA WAJSFELD, ALBERTO THOMAZ GONÇALVES, ANDRÉ LUIZ MEDEIROS MACHADO, ALEX GASPAR DE MIRANDA COUTINHO, JÚLIO SCHUBERT FRABETTI, and CARLOS EDUARDO DA COSTA, due to the statute of limitations on the punitive claim, which I do based on Article 107, IV, first figure, in conjunction with Articles 109, items III and IV, and Article 110, §1, all of the Penal Code.

-------------------------